I played last week CK2 after CK3 and found out that CK2 is far supperior game in many aspects

[ivane]

Main thing which I liked in CK2 more is that you are developing your character, life and your decitions are changing your character. For example Even if you have weak character at young age, you can still become efitient by achieving things. For example if you win battles, you will become good strategist no matter how unexperienced your character was at age 16. In CK3 you just stuck with your character and its 3 traits, doesnot matter how great deeds you achieve. you rarly can change traits or skills...


also traits are too few. Character should have much more complex personallity than 3 traits. person should be much more complex than that, this is main reason why we do not remember any of our characters in CK3, they are oversimplified and almost never change after 16 years, so they do not have personallity and we did not remember them... I played whole game as byzantine in CK3 on ironman and had much less imertion than with 1 character in CK2. this can not be accident

Another big thing is warfare. It was so damn immersing in CK2, you have 2 generals on flanks, different battle phases, duels in middle of battles.. having weak general could become big problemm.
Also in CK3 if you have castle, enemy is automaticly on the attacking side when you appear and that is really stupid. if enemy is besieging your settlement that does not mean that he has to attack you when you show up. I can even show you historical evidence. look how ceasar fought gouls in Battle of Alesia. He has besieged Gouls and built another wall around camp, so when gouls came they also had to besiege Ceasars camp.

My biggest problem is dumbing down game is intentional to make game much more easy for casual players, but that also makes it boring in a big time. It is shame, I hope paradox will change that philosophy and make CK3 as complex as CK2, but sadly I dont think so. We are in modern era, where every game has to be dumbed down, even grand strategy... shame

[VoiD]

Yes, CK3 is an empty husk compared to CK2, with a better presentation.

Which is not so bad, everyone was expecting ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ of content to be released after CK3's great release, it was probably the best paradox launch ever, great score, well received, everyone loved it, and it was easy to learn.

But then we've waited for almost 2 years and no real content was developed to the game, the first DLC doesn't even count as a flavor pack, and this last DLC is very light even compared to regular CK2 DLC, so the game's kinda dead.

[jerrypocalypse]

Originally posted by ivane:

Main thing which I liked in CK2 more is that you are developing your character, life and your decitions are changing your character. For example Even if you have weak character at young age, you can still become efitient by achieving things. For example if you win battles, you will become good strategist no matter how unexperienced your character was at age 16. In CK3 you just stuck with your character and its 3 traits, doesnot matter how great deeds you achieve. you rarly can change traits or skills...


also traits are too few. Character should have much more complex personallity than 3 traits. person should be much more complex than that, this is main reason why we do not remember any of our characters in CK3, they are oversimplified and almost never change after 16 years, so they do not have personallity and we did not remember them... I played whole game as byzantine in CK3 on ironman and had much less imertion than with 1 character in CK2. this can not be accident

I can't comment on the other stuff as I've only played CK3, but all of the above is the exact opposite of my experience. 90% of my characters have changed immensely as I play them and do different decisions, events, and actions. My current first heir went from a shy schemer to a rakish, raiding warlord over th course of 20 years. It's all dependent on how you play them. If you just stick to what they're good at initially, they're not going to change much, obviously. But you can do all sorts of things that get them additional traits and change their skills.

[Dumah]

Another BS thread.

Originally posted by ivane:

Main thing which I liked in CK2 more is that you are developing your character, life and your decitions are changing your character.

- there are no character development in CK2. You can hoard traits but those traits have zero influence on gameplay other than providing you with stats. Its a good thing thad devs get rid of this in CK3 and now personality traits actually have impact on your character.

Originally posted by ivane:

also traits are too few. Character should have much more complex personallity than 3 traits.

- with those 3-4 traits they have far more complex personalities than any of schizophrenic trait hoarding powerplay abominations in CK2.

Originally posted by ivane:

I played whole game as byzantine in CK3 on ironman and had much less imertion than with 1 character in CK2. this can not be accident

- thats because you just dont like CK3, no accidents indeed.

Originally posted by ivane:

Another big thing is warfare. It was so damn immersing in CK2, you have 2 generals on flanks, different battle phases, duels in middle of battles.. having weak general could become big problemm.

- ROFLMAO CK2 warfare was a mess with alot hidden arcane mechanics. CK3 is a massive update over it.

Originally posted by ivane:

Also in CK3 if you have castle, enemy is automaticly on the attacking side when you appear and that is really stupid.

- no it isnt. This is your defensive territory with strategicaly placed fortress.

Originally posted by ivane:

if enemy is besieging your settlement that does not mean that he has to attack you when you show up. I can even show you historical evidence. look how ceasar fought gouls in Battle of Alesia. He has besieged Gouls and built another wall around camp, so when gouls came they also had to besiege Ceasars camp.

- i never heard about Ceasar fighting against "gouls". But that "evidence" of yours is hardly applicable to the way how wars and combat wor in CK. Bibracte was not a fortress and Gaul was not a realm.

Originally posted by ivane:

My biggest problem is dumbing down game is intentional to make game much more easy for casual players, but that also makes it boring in a big time. It is shame, I hope paradox will change that philosophy and make CK3 as complex as CK2, but sadly I dont think so. We are in modern era, where every game has to be dumbed down, even grand strategy... shame

- game was not dumbed down in any way, shape or form. CK3 is immensely more advanced and sophisticated product than CK2 ever was. Forever grinding trough a monoblock empires with holywar CB doesnt make CK2 more complex. As for difficulty... hate to burst your uberleetgaymeer bubble, but none of Pdx games are or evere were hard.

[peequi]

Agree with original post, especially the part of CK3 being dumb downed to appeal to a larger market. I think we will have the modding community fix many things and the game will be overall good. Now that the game has been out awhile and is probably fairly stable(no major updates in the future) I am hoping modders spice things up.

Modders step up!

[Grunaldi]

Originally posted by Dumah:

there are no character development in CK2. You can hoard traits but those traits have zero influence on gameplay other than providing you with stats. Its a good thing thad devs get rid of this in CK3 and now personality traits actually have impact on your character.

there are no character development in CK3. You can have a few traits but those traits have zero influence on gameplay other than providing you with stats.
Its was good thing that devs added them in CK2 and so personality traits actually had impact on your character.

Originally posted by Dumah:

- with those 3-4 traits they have far more complex personalities than any of schizophrenic trait hoarding powerplay abominations in CK2.

schizophrenic trait hoarding powerplay abomination have far more complex personalities than any of those 3-4 traits characters in CK3

Originally posted by Dumah:

thats because you just dont like CK3, no accidents indeed.

thats because you just dont like CK2, no accidents indeed.

Originally posted by Dumah:

- ROFLMAO:HappyMask: CK2 warfare was a mess with alot hidden arcane mechanics. CK2 is a massive update over it.

ROFLMAO:HappyMask: CK3 warfare is a mess with no depth and alot arcane mechanics. CK3 is a massive update over it.

Originally posted by Dumah:

- no it isnt. This is your defensive territory with strategicaly placed fortress.

1st actuall point that I can't just flip . Nice job :*

Originally posted by Dumah:

- game was not dumbed down in any way, shape or form. CK3 is immensely more advanced and sophisticated product than CK2 ever was. Forever grinding trough a monoblock empires with holywar CB doesnt make CK2 more complex. As for difficulty... hate to burst your uberleetgaymeer bubble, but none of Pdx games are or evere were hard.

game was dumbed down in many ways . CK2 is immensely more advanced and sophisticated product than CK3 will ever be. Not grinding trough a monoblock empires with holywar CB doesnt make CK3 more complex. As for difficulty... hate to burst your uberleetgaymeer bubble, but even in Pdx games u can point 2 easier and harder games and CK2 is just harder than CK3

had a lot of fun with that one
as we can see just saying things don't make them true
stating opinions is fine but ... proves nothing

[Kimlin]

Originally posted by Dumah:

- As for difficulty... hate to burst your uberleetgaymeer bubble, but even in Pdx games u can point 2 easier and harder games and CK2 is just harder than CK3

.

I’m a fan of both games but is CK2 really harder? On my first Ironman play through I am literally one battle away from recreating Rome with A Norse Pagan campaign. A little more complexity with war and especially the navy, sure but difficulty? I don’t think it really is more difficult. I do think CK3 could add more depth to war, religion and government but those could/should come with additional DLC.

As far as traits they simply pushed traits into the lifestyle trees. You can still have a shy gallant strategist you just have more control over it.

[Grunaldi]

Originally posted by Kimlin:

I’m a fan of both games but is CK2 really harder?

at the very least CK2 had a Difficulty Settings from Very Easy 2 Very Hard so there is that

[jerrypocalypse]

Originally posted by Kimlin:

Originally posted by Dumah:

- As for difficulty... hate to burst your uberleetgaymeer bubble, but even in Pdx games u can point 2 easier and harder games and CK2 is just harder than CK3

.

I’m a fan of both games but is CK2 really harder? On my first Ironman play through I am literally one battle away from recreating Rome with A Norse Pagan campaign. A little more complexity with war and especially the navy, sure but difficulty? I don’t think it really is more difficult. I do think CK3 could add more depth to war, religion and government but those could/should come with additional DLC.

As far as traits they simply pushed traits into the lifestyle trees. You can still have a shy gallant strategist you just have more control over it.

I haven't played CK2, so I can't speak to that, but while I don't really think CK3 is hard, I also don't think it's easy either. You can fairly easily min-max and *make* it easy, but as I've been playing it more RP it with mini personal goals, I haven't really found it to be a cake-walk. As long as you're not intentionally min-maxing or gaming the mechanics/systems, the difficulty seems fine. I guess I view CK3 as more of a creative/emergent storytelling game than as a difficult strategy game.

[1632189633]

i agree with you. too few event

[Kimlin]

Originally posted by jerrypocalypse:

Originally posted by Kimlin:

.

I’m a fan of both games but is CK2 really harder? On my first Ironman play through I am literally one battle away from recreating Rome with A Norse Pagan campaign. A little more complexity with war and especially the navy, sure but difficulty? I don’t think it really is more difficult. I do think CK3 could add more depth to war, religion and government but those could/should come with additional DLC.

As far as traits they simply pushed traits into the lifestyle trees. You can still have a shy gallant strategist you just have more control over it.

I haven't played CK2, so I can't speak to that, but while I don't really think CK3 is hard, I also don't think it's easy either. You can fairly easily min-max and *make* it easy, but as I've been playing it more RP it with mini personal goals, I haven't really found it to be a cake-walk. As long as you're not intentionally min-maxing or gaming the mechanics/systems, the difficulty seems fine. I guess I view CK3 as more of a creative/emergent storytelling game than as a difficult strategy game.

CK3 is easy. I have to use mods to increase the difficulty and I just play for fun not trying to min max. There could be additional difficulty settings that give the AI a helping hand and I would certainly use them.

That being said CK2 was just about as easy even with additional settings. The difference between the two as far as difficulty is the RNG in CK2. 100 prowess super soldier vs 1 prowess blind imbecile? Whoops yku still lost. There seems to be more attempts to kill you too. That’s really about it.

[VoiD]

CK2 is probably 10 or 20x harder than CK3.


That being said, once you learn to play, CK2 isn't hard at all, it's one of the hardest paradox games to learn, but it was possibly the easiest once you did. The opposite of EU4 on both.

The fact that CK3 is probably 20x easier than the easiest paradox game says something about it, plus it doesn't have a fraction of the depth.

[Khronos]

Originally posted by Grunaldi:

Originally posted by Dumah:

there are no character development in CK2. You can hoard traits but those traits have zero influence on gameplay other than providing you with stats. Its a good thing thad devs get rid of this in CK3 and now personality traits actually have impact on your character.

there are no character development in CK3. You can have a few traits but those traits have zero influence on gameplay other than providing you with stats.
Its was good thing that devs added them in CK2 and so personality traits actually had impact on your character.

Originally posted by Dumah:

- with those 3-4 traits they have far more complex personalities than any of schizophrenic trait hoarding powerplay abominations in CK2.

schizophrenic trait hoarding powerplay abomination have far more complex personalities than any of those 3-4 traits characters in CK3

Originally posted by Dumah:

thats because you just dont like CK3, no accidents indeed.

thats because you just dont like CK2, no accidents indeed.

Originally posted by Dumah:

- ROFLMAO:HappyMask: CK2 warfare was a mess with alot hidden arcane mechanics. CK2 is a massive update over it.

ROFLMAO:HappyMask: CK3 warfare is a mess with no depth and alot arcane mechanics. CK3 is a massive update over it.

Originally posted by Dumah:

- no it isnt. This is your defensive territory with strategicaly placed fortress.

1st actuall point that I can't just flip . Nice job :*

Originally posted by Dumah:

- game was not dumbed down in any way, shape or form. CK3 is immensely more advanced and sophisticated product than CK2 ever was. Forever grinding trough a monoblock empires with holywar CB doesnt make CK2 more complex. As for difficulty... hate to burst your uberleetgaymeer bubble, but none of Pdx games are or evere were hard.

game was dumbed down in many ways . CK2 is immensely more advanced and sophisticated product than CK3 will ever be. Not grinding trough a monoblock empires with holywar CB doesnt make CK3 more complex. As for difficulty... hate to burst your uberleetgaymeer bubble, but even in Pdx games u can point 2 easier and harder games and CK2 is just harder than CK3

had a lot of fun with that one
as we can see just saying things don't make them true
stating opinions is fine but ... proves nothing

What are you talking about? Tell me how traits in CK2 gave characters personalities, like CK3 kinda does (I admit it's not perfect, but better in that aspect than CK2), and aren't there just for stats? Like, sure, there are few decisions or events in CK2 that do require or are influenced by your traits, but that's way less than CK3. (Though CK3 does seem to have less events in general)

Like, you could legit have a Diligent, Zealous, Chaste character, but then turn him into a Lazy, Cynical, Lustful character without any penalty. At least in CK3 you can suffer from changing traits or going against them.

Yes, CK3 is very limited when compared to CK2. Societies, for example, are something I miss. But CK2 IS focused in forming great empires through wars. And CK3 is focused in a RP-ish aspect, instead of "Form an absolute giant empire". In fact, CK3 even kinda tries to convince the players to have your dynasty spread throughout the world instead of having one single character ruling all the land (They do that through the Renown system, but idk if actually works.)

The thing is, CK2 and CK3 are basically two different games altogether.

[VoiD]

Originally posted by Khronos:

Originally posted by Grunaldi:

there are no character development in CK3. You can have a few traits but those traits have zero influence on gameplay other than providing you with stats.
Its was good thing that devs added them in CK2 and so personality traits actually had impact on your character.



schizophrenic trait hoarding powerplay abomination have far more complex personalities than any of those 3-4 traits characters in CK3


thats because you just dont like CK2, no accidents indeed.



ROFLMAO:HappyMask: CK3 warfare is a mess with no depth and alot arcane mechanics. CK3 is a massive update over it.

1st actuall point that I can't just flip . Nice job :*





game was dumbed down in many ways . CK2 is immensely more advanced and sophisticated product than CK3 will ever be. Not grinding trough a monoblock empires with holywar CB doesnt make CK3 more complex. As for difficulty... hate to burst your uberleetgaymeer bubble, but even in Pdx games u can point 2 easier and harder games and CK2 is just harder than CK3

had a lot of fun with that one
as we can see just saying things don't make them true
stating opinions is fine but ... proves nothing

What are you talking about? Tell me how traits in CK2 gave characters personalities, like CK3 kinda does (I admit it's not perfect, but better in that aspect than CK2), and aren't there just for stats? Like, sure, there are few decisions or events that do require or are influenced by your traits, but that's way less than CK3. (Though CK3 does seem to have less events in general)

Like, you could legit have a Diligent, Zealous, Chaste character, but then turn him into a Lazy, Cynical, Lustful character without any penalty. At least in CK3 you can suffer from changing traits or going against them.

Yes, CK3 is very limited when compared to CK2. Societies, for example, are something I miss. But CK2 IS focused in forming great empires through wars. And CK3 is focused in a RP-ish aspect, instead of "Form an absolute giant empire". In fact, CK3 even kinda tries to convince the players to have your dynasty spread throughout the world instead of having one single character ruling all the land (They do that through the Renown system, but idk if actually works.)

The thing is, CK2 and CK3 are basically two different games altogether.

Not really, CK2 has a focus, CK3 doesn't.

This is no the sims, there is nothing to RP that couldn't be done in CK2, having a minor stress modifier for certain actions which can be largely ignored by simply going on a hunt doesn't "make" the player do anything, CK3 is just that, it's not even good enough as an empire builder, the Ai isn't even easy, it's completely turned off, it can't hold, manage, develop or fight againything, and their empires just constantly crumble on their own for no real reason and no outside influences.

In Ck2, like you mentioned, life could throw some curveballs at you and force you to adapt, also, if you do not act like a dilligent ruler would and instead engaged often in lustful acts, you'd become lustful, the penalty is the attribute itself as it was often negative, seen poorly (something the modable religions of CK3 can also remove as a penalty) and get you in all sorts of troubles.

In CK3 the dilligent ruler acting lustfuly his entire life doesn't even get the lustful sin, there is no personality to build, even if we had the content to create actual bloodlines and try to become a saint we couldn't, because you wouldn't get saintly traits by acting like a saint.

[jerrypocalypse]

Originally posted by Kimlin:

Originally posted by jerrypocalypse:

I haven't played CK2, so I can't speak to that, but while I don't really think CK3 is hard, I also don't think it's easy either. You can fairly easily min-max and *make* it easy, but as I've been playing it more RP it with mini personal goals, I haven't really found it to be a cake-walk. As long as you're not intentionally min-maxing or gaming the mechanics/systems, the difficulty seems fine. I guess I view CK3 as more of a creative/emergent storytelling game than as a difficult strategy game.

CK3 is easy. I have to use mods to increase the difficulty and I just play for fun not trying to min max. There could be additional difficulty settings that give the AI a helping hand and I would certainly use them.

That being said CK2 was just about as easy even with additional settings. The difference between the two as far as difficulty is the RNG in CK2. 100 prowess super soldier vs 1 prowess blind imbecile? Whoops yku still lost. There seems to be more attempts to kill you too. That’s really about it.

That's the thing about difficulty, it's extremely subjective. Not only does it depend on individual skill, but also on playstyle. And playstyles for CK3 vary wildly. 🙂

[Ashling]

Originally posted by Grunaldi:

at the very least CK2 had a Difficulty Settings from Very Easy 2 Very Hard so there is that

CK3's game rules are pretty fleshed out too. You can make factions weaker or stronger for example and all while playing on Iron man.

Originally posted by Kimlin:

I’m a fan of both games but is CK2 really harder?

I think they have different kinds of difficulties. It can really be summed up with how you can kill your heir in 2 but not 3. CK3 wants you to have a succession crises and tries to give you tools to manage it in a not so direct way, usually during the actual crises, while in CK2 the succession crises may be due to mismanagement of the council, vassals, or succession laws. 3 likes guiding you towards the action while 2 likes you being responsible for your own problems (except for outside threats).

Originally posted by jerrypocalypse:

I can't comment on the other stuff as I've only played CK3, but all of the above is the exact opposite of my experience. 90% of my characters have changed immensely as I play them and do different decisions, events, and actions. My current first heir went from a shy schemer to a rakish, raiding warlord over th course of 20 years. It's all dependent on how you play them. If you just stick to what they're good at initially, they're not going to change much, obviously. But you can do all sorts of things that get them additional traits and change their skills.

I do think CK3 takes longer to have your character develop though. Like I was just keeping track of how long it took me to seduce a woman who was trying to seduce me back (I was thinking, "oh, how sweet, if they like each other it shouldn't take that long). It took almost 5 years. And by the time the relationship was at its peak she was barren! It would've taken a few months in CK2 if both parties were interested.

I get that I was meant to be investing in that relationship so she wouldn't be just another consort, but holy heck it was like a will they won't they story.

I find that in CK3 a lot of events just take far too long to come to fruition (except murder, that's always quick) and when they do happen they tend to leave way too quickly. I can't really explain it better than that.